The Fact of Life

“All complex life on Earth developed from simpler life-forms over billions of years. ... If you doubt that human beings evolved from prior species, you may as well doubt that the sun is a star”.

I have yet to hear anything, even remotely plausible, to explain abiogenesis. That aside, we can trace human DNA back to about 50,000-80,000 years. Since he didn’t give any evidence to support his claim, what specific species did we branch off of 50,000 years ago?

“All complex life on Earth developed from simpler life-forms over billions of years. ... If you doubt that human beings evolved from prior species, you may as well doubt that the sun is a star”.

I have yet to hear anything, even remotely plausible, to explain abiogenesis. That aside, we can trace human DNA back to about 50,000-80,000 years. Since he didn’t give any evidence to support his claim, what specific species did we branch off of 50,000 years ago?

Usually when a person asks a question like this the reply is to instruct them to go do the research. You will find ample research relating to this. You are also either being rather disingenuous, or showing ignorance of the basic science involved. As for abiogenesis, I would again refer you to the relevant scientific literature. When you say that you don’t find any current work plausible you need to qualify that with an “according to my belief system, which I am defending by posting here.”

‘I have yet to hear anything, even remotely plausible, to explain abiogenesis’

You have got to be kidding. If true, then you have not tried very hard. There are many, many plausible explanations for the origin of life. Start with this link I have provided.

There are also many more and in fact we are getting really close to understanding what happened 3.8 billion years ago to produce the first replicating molecules through ‘protocells’ It is a new and wonderful field of study. Anyway, start here-

You have got to be kidding. If true, then you have not tried very hard. There are many, many plausible explanations for the origin of life. Start with this link I have provided. There are also many more and in fact we are getting really close to understanding what happened 3.8 billion years ago to produce the first replicating molecules through ‘protocells’ It is a new and wonderful field of study.

Not kidding in the least. Without proteins you have no DNA/RNA. Without DNA/RNA you have no proteins. Without the cell wall and membrane, DNA/RNA and proteins are unstable. To form a cell, all of these needed to “self assemble” simultaneously. This is a tough nut to crack, and the explanations given fail to do so.

But this isn’t my question, my question is, we have DNA evidence that places the origin of man about 50000 years ago. If we evolved from prior species, as Harris claims in his book, which one(s)?

‘I have yet to hear anything, even remotely plausible, to explain abiogenesis’

You have got to be kidding. If true, then you have not tried very hard. There are many, many plausible explanations for the origin of life. Start with this link I have provided.

There are also many more and in fact we are getting really close to understanding what happened 3.8 billion years ago to produce the first replicating molecules through ‘protocells’ It is a new and wonderful field of study. Anyway, start here-

You have got to be kidding. If true, then you have not tried very hard. There are many, many plausible explanations for the origin of life. Start with this link I have provided. There are also many more and in fact we are getting really close to understanding what happened 3.8 billion years ago to produce the first replicating molecules through ‘protocells’ It is a new and wonderful field of study.

Not kidding in the least. Without proteins you have no DNA/RNA. Without DNA/RNA you have no proteins. Without the cell wall and membrane, DNA/RNA and proteins are unstable. To form a cell, all of these needed to “self assemble” simultaneously. This is a tough nut to crack, and the explanations given fail to do so.

But this isn’t my question, my question is, we have DNA evidence that places the origin of man about 50000 years ago. If we evolved from prior species, as Harris claims in his book, which one(s)?

Seems like you already have an answer in mind (god or aliens?) and as such are not interested in really learning anything. I say this because if you were, simply typing “human evolution” into any search engine would answer your question.

Don’t bother with this guy, he is not going to do anything but push his own agenda.

I’m curious about his question though too, why don’t you just explain it to him (me) instead of claiming he’s being disingenuous? Why is his question not legitimate?

Because he hasn’t bothered to say why he finds current science on the topic of abiogenesis unconvincing, only that he doesn’t believe it. He could, for example, consider the work of Eigen & Schuster on hypercycles and much of the more recent work that is in a similar vein. As for his question about when homo sapient branched off, there is extensive available work on this as well, and his question shows a good deal of ignorance. Finally, my time is limited.

Because these themes have been discussed many times in the 2 1/2 years that Frimbo has been trolling these forums, and in that time he could certainly have looked up any of this information at any major library. He could have gone to several universities and talked to professors in the fields in which his curiosity lies. He could have corresponded with those working directly in the fields in question, electronically or with pen and paper. Instead, he comes to this forum to ask an audience that is far less likely to have these answers. I suspect it is because he’s not interested in the answers (that he could have obtained long since) but more to make a rhetorical statement.

If he (and you) really want the answers to these questions, they are readily available for either of you to obtain, from a number of different sources, with very minimal effort.

I think you’re right about the guy having a bad attitude, but none of the above are going to be able to provide a real answer to abiogenesis. The problem is that it’s the wrong question, and it’s usually only asked by those who want to present a bullshit answer in an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I can understand skipping to that step, but we have to acknowledge the nature of the question and of the unknown on the way to dealing with the unknown properly, like adults. We (skeptics) do that, but we should always show our work. Some of the children we deal with like this may actually learn from it, but regardless, we need to be completely straightforward with them. The infants are just never going to get it out of willful ignorance, but that’s their problem, and by skipping the obvious step we’re not going to eliminate their opportunity for dishonesty. They’re obviously setting up the opportunity by asking the wrong question (it’s the right question if you’re trying to find a bullshit excuse to feel okay about being dishonest regarding evolution and/or creationism/ID), so they won’t miss it just because we don’t acknowledge it.

And there’s always the chance, as remote as it may be, that the wrong question is just an honest error.

Yeah ... I know.

Byron

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Not kidding in the least. Without proteins you have no DNA/RNA. Without DNA/RNA you have no proteins. Without the cell wall and membrane, DNA/RNA and proteins are unstable. To form a cell, all of these needed to “self assemble” simultaneously. This is a tough nut to crack, and the explanations given fail to do so.

Burt Wrote…

Because he hasn’t bothered to say why he finds current science on the topic of abiogenesis unconvincing, only that he doesn’t believe it.

Huh?

You can question this dogma as long as the specifics don’t exceed the level of Miss Cleo. “Yer silly question is disingenuous, yer an ignoramus with a bad attitude, No more free readins fer ya.” Sad, but the blind fools really believe there are specific answers out there somewhere, assuming one digs in the right “major library”. If that were really the case, right now I would be being buried alive in textbook quotations, instead of pontifications.

You can question this dogma as long as the specifics don’t exceed the level of Miss Cleo. “Yer silly question is disingenuous, yer an ignoramus with a bad attitude, No more free readins fer ya.” Sad, but the blind fools really believe there are specific answers out there somewhere, assuming one digs in the right “major library”. If that were really the case, right now I would be being buried alive in textbook quotations, instead of pontifications.

There’s a reason that you’re not renowned the world over for dismantling the edifice of science. It’s because, Mr. Frimbo, you’re a dumbshit.